|
Several have asked me the difference in my position on divorce and remarriage and Olan Hicks' position, which many, who see the traditional view as unbelievable, have come to believe and teach. I shall endeavor to answer the question as thoroughly as I can in view of what I believe to be the truth, which is not a new doctrine but one that is believed and taught by disciples throughout the world.
First, I learned from brother Hicks that the traditional position is contradicted by various passages in the New Testament (1 Thessalonians 4:1-3; 1 Cor. 7:1, 2, 7, 8, 27-28, 36), which make it unbelievable. I also learned from him how the traditional doctrine came about. I used to believe exactly as he does but after much reading and studying I have come to believe that the divorce and remarriage issue is much simpler than explained by brother Hicks.
I. Hicks' view:
In Matt. 19:9, where Jesus said, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery," Hicks believes the word apoluo is properly translated "divorce."
Problems:
1. Hicks' view shares the same problem as the traditional view. It has Jesus teaching the Jews, contrary to Moses (Deut. 24:1-4), that divorced women could not marry another, without committing adultery, and that anyone that married a divorced woman would also commit adultery. This alone is a very big problem.
2. If Jesus actually made a change of the Law and said that a divorced person can't marry another without committing adultery, unless the divorce was for fornication, then in this one example Jesus fell for the trap and the Pharisees were successful.
3. The Jews were looking for Jesus to say something contradictory to Moses so they could kill him. Therefore, the fact that they did not charge Jesus with contradicting the Law is indication that they understood Jesus to be speaking of something besides divorce when He spoke of their practice of putting away. http://www.totalhea lth.bz/divorce-and-remarriage-truth-1.htm
II. Hicks' view:
"Divorce is wrong, marriage is right." "Marriage destruction (divorce, rw) serves Satan's purpose." Divorce is a sin but forgivable.
Problems:
1. God gave the divorce law for our benefit. It was designed to permanently end a marriage in a way that could be publicly proven and which would allow the woman who was given the certificate to "go be another man's wife." Therefore, divorce is not always wrong, which is something I think brother Hicks would admit if pressed.
2. God divorced His wife, Israel , so divorce itself can't be wrong in all cases.
III. Hicks' view on the exception clause:
Adultery takes place when one divorces and has sex in the second marriage. It is a onetime thing—not continual. It satisfies the "except for fornication" clause, in cases where the divorce was not for fornication. The divorce and adultery are forgivable.
Problems:
1. Even if Jesus said, "Whoever divorces (rather than "puts away," rw) his wife and marries another, except for fornication, commits adultery against her," there is no need for the argument that it is not continual adultery. The sin is "against her" (Mark 10:11) is "covenant breaking" (as explained by Hicks) and therefore NOT sexual adultery WITH the person in the new marriage. Married people do not commit adultery when they have sex. The Jewish men (who Jesus was addressing) were allowed more than one wife, thus divorcing and marrying did not result in sexual adultery being committed with the person in the new marriage. The sin the Jewish men committed was in what they were doing to their wives. Their wives were often "put away" (not divorced) and therefore were out on their own to make a living and could not marry another. It would not have been adultery if they had actually divorced their wives because they would have been happy to have received the "get" (certificate of divorce). This evil practice continues to this day. See the link below:
http://www.totalhea lth.bz/divorce-and-remarriage-jewish-women-in-chains.htm
2. The traditional view on the exception clause (which Hicks holds) has Jesus teaching contrary to Moses. The word "fornication" (in the clause) is considered to be "adultery" but the Law required the death penalty for sexual adultery. Therefore, the exception clause must refer to something else. The reason for the divorce that was actually carried out by the men was not questioned. Furthermore, even if the woman was just "put away" and no certificate of divorce given, this putting away was "suffered"—there was no action taken against the man. His gain was that he did not have to pay back the dowry, which he would have had to do if he actually divorced the wife.
http://www.totalhealth.bz/divorce-and-remarriage-exception-clause.htm
IV. Hicks view does not harmonize the teaching of Paul with the teaching of Jesus.
Problem:
Brother Hicks believes that in 1 Cor. 7:10-11, Paul is speaking of a couple that is separated, rather than divorced, and therefore the idea that Paul is teaching celibacy is out of the question. I believe he is correct, but he applies the teaching of Jesus, spoken to the Jews, to Christians today and contends that a divorce has taken place where the context indicates that one is merely separated. Furthermore, Hicks makes no effort to point out that Paul nowhere confirmed or taught that divorce must be for fornication, or that any marriage following a divorce would result in adultery.
V. Brother Hicks View: "What God has joined together let not man put asunder" as being "let not man do away with marriage."
Problem:
The emphasis in studying this passage should be put on the word "man." Divorce (“put asunder”) is apparently the topic under consideration. Why would God say, "Let not man do away with marriage, or do a divorce," when He had given a command through Moses detailing HOW divorce is to be done? It is much more likely that the phrase means for men not to try to end a marriage his own way, but when determined to do it, do it God's way. When divorce is done God's way the marriage is ended and both parties are free to marry another – no adultery is committed by either party. But when man does not do a divorce God's way, but merely "sends out of the house," "puts away," "repudiates, " or "dismisses," which is what apoluo means, the marriage is still intact, which clearly and reasonably explains Jesus' declaration that adultery is committed by marrying another.
Conclusion:
Because Hicks' view does not "forbid marriage" it is more acceptable and believable than the traditional view that is against justice (punishing innocents) and has many other problems, some of which Hicks' view shares. But one should reject any view that has unsolvable problems and seek for the position that still stands as reasonable and sound after good hermeneutics are applied.
|
